[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Selena Sol) writes:
> > Ask wrote:
> > I think that as a community we would get much more out of sponsoring
> > another year of Damian (or someone like that) or sponsoring specific
> > development of specific features in specific modules (including the
> > perl core).
> >
> > The last type of sponsorships are also much much easier to "sell" to a
> > company than "we need money to burn on advertising, send some!".
>
> Good point! This may be another conrete project to be managed by
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] I like the way the discussions are going....I
> find advocacy without concrete projects a bit airy and pointless.
eh. if anything then the project should be to figure out how to
advertise the fact that it can work out that way. I suspect though
that companies who would want that kind of service would be clued
enough to figure it out on their own.
"Managing" a project like that doesn't make any sense. What makes
sense is company A just contacts developer B and they work out a
contract, B goes to work and A sends B a check.
That's it. No project for advocacy@ to manage.
> Maybe one thing thazt can come out of this is that we all choose one
> or two "small" projects that we can try to get off the ground
> together. They must be small, discrete and achievable. It would
> give us some experience managing a distributed grass roots project.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you; but how can "we" choose a project?
To continue Nathans example; do you want "us" to call random companies
and try to get them to "buy" better ithread support?
- ask
--
ask bjoern hansen, http://ask.netcetera.dk/ !try; do();
